Leftbook is the dumbest fucking shit

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of pacifism. Veganism too. But when you really think about it, both are idealism.

I wouldn't support open borders in the context of the current system

I hate the way these anarchists look idk why

Edgy

@olev Why not?

It would lower wages

And there'd probably be a large flood of immigration

Please remind me of you ideology.

Yeah I haven't made up my mind about things but Idk about open borders

Anarcho-collectivist/communist

But there wouldn't be a large amount of immigration

Since they are not fleeing from oppression

Open borders with a People's Glorious Borsch Truck on every corner

Why would there be a large flood of immigration?

If we had open borders today?

Well, why the fuck would you want to live in shit living conditions if you can just freely move to somewhere better?

to seek wealth

This is why collectivists are labour aristocrats.

You want to hoard it for yourself.

On the flip side though, people having higher wages would prolong the capitalist illusion

And that pleases you?

I'm saying that it's the problem

hence why I said on the flip side

Cool.

I hope you understood my critique.

I do understand it

I have not thought about borders much

There's many things I haven't though much about, I'm still learning

Me too.

It's been a while: but on the topic of Pacifism v. Direct Action/rioting: There's not a lot of use of pacifism in history as I've read it to warrant ever calling it a succesful thing to do, or if it ever lead to anything happening on its own. In recent cases you could compare the results of the Occupy Wallstreat movement which was wholly peaceful vs the riots of Ferguson. Occupy lead to nothing going on, and in the long-game sense of it lead to a class of economically frustrated individuals that lead to Bernie and Trump, and when Bernie was booted out of the election then Trump became the momentary standard barrer for people dissatisifed with the economic direction. But in the end: Trump filled his White House with the same Wall Street people that got us into the mess before.

Compared against the Ferguson riots, which put so much in the way of danger that the fastest way to deescalate was to bow to the pressure of force and inact immediate reforms to try and heal the wounds. In a metaphorical sense, Ferguson became an open sore that festered and needed to be treated while Occupy was a simple cut that healed up on its own.

To add to the pattern, even the Detroit riots in the mid-60's lead to immediate reforms in city government as it pertained to housing reform for blacks and bringing in more of the growing non-white population of the city into munincipal government as a gesture to bridge opening divides.

The tactics of the labor movement, either stubbornly at odds with the buisiness owners or even violent like the Haymarket Riot bombing ultimately resulted in the passing of the 8-hour workday, workplace safety standards, minimum wage, and so on.

And no one ever petitioned succesfully to end slavery in the States. If anything the petitioning lead to war which in the course of the war slavery was legally ended.

The thing with violence isn't so much being violent in itself, but the use of violence. Are people unrelated to the cause going to die, even as simple unavoidable consequences of conflict? Or is the threat of violent and force to enforce some sort of change going to be applied as with groups like the Deacons of Defense in the deep south during the Civil Rights movement?

Funny thing that's related

I once joined a socialist server that said advocating for political violence is not allowed